Sometimes you really have to wonder what is going through the head of football boardrooms. For an environment that is supposed to make key decisions as their only business, it's frightening how little some executives seem to pay attention to the wider football world. When Mike Ashley started to make his move for Rangers, Newcastle fans rubbed their hands at the suggestion that he might be moving towards a sale of the Tyneside club. But now, with more than 9% of the Scottish club owned, and now a further financial deal on the table to gain control of the boardroom - despite statements that Newcastle won't be sold until AT LEAST 2016 - it's all just grim again. What is it that the Rangers board are seeing in Ashley that we can't? Why is his money preferable when he has attracted such anger from Newcastle fans and criticism from the wider football world? Does financial survival and a good balance book really cost that much now? Having forced out one big opponent this week, Ashley has convinced the Rangers board that his offer of an initial £2m loan and the option of a new share issue is the best approach, and have rejected Brian Kennedy's alternative offer. As part of the agreement, chief executive Graham Wallace will step down - the second part of his demands when he and Nash tried to lead a rebellion against his power play. The question now is how this sits with the SFA's agreement that he can't have boardroom influence of more than 10% while he still owns Newcastle. Will that now be changed, or will Ashley simply get around it by offering loans rather than buying more shares? What is clear is that he will continue to demand two representatives on the board. Derek Llambias anyone? In light of the announcement of Ashley's continued power increase, Sale Sharks owner Kennedy has said that he was "disappointed for Rangers" but would not be commenting further.
